Do School Trip Fees subsidise non-payers?

MadDogWoman_2

jellyhead wrote: »

I hope they give a maximum amount of spending money.

My DD is going on a 2 night residential trip in a couple of weeks. The school has been given a discount and is covering the rest out of the pupil premium to enable for her to go as she is currently on FSM following redundancy of DH earlier this year

We have been given a maximum limit of spending money £5.

DD is only 6 and it will be her first time away from home not staying with family.

jellyhead

MadDogWoman wrote: »

My DD is going on a 2 night residential trip in a couple of weeks. The school has been given a discount and is covering the rest out of the pupil premium to enable for her to go as she is currently on FSM following redundancy of DH earlier this year

We have been given a maximum limit of spending money £5.

DD is only 6 and it will be her first time away from home not staying with family.

Same here, he is 8 but is the youngest in the class and it's a 4-night residential. I hope they will put a cap on the spending money of around £10 or less.

I assume it's the pupil premium that's being used to pay for the children on FSM to go on this trip, and that's fair enough - it's great that everyone can go. School are also offering a payment card for parents to pay in instalments, which is what I'll be doing.

Redouble

princessdon wrote: »

I'd say a trip to France or outward bounds is educational and its common policy to only go if you pay. They allow them swimming lessons etc, but not music, sport, and others, they just provide a sport activity in school as opposed to rock climbing.

Most none payers can afford the £5 trips etc, if they gave up their phone contracts.

You're right, except I'd need to find a lot more than £5 to get out of my phone contract...
I DETEST this holier than thou attitude, if people cannot pay, they cannot pay, they may have phones *gasp* or a tv *double gasp* but just because they don't live in a shack with no electricity and wear burlap sacks instead if clothes to fit in with your ideal of being impoverished doesn't mean they actually cannot pay!

Treevo

Redouble wrote: »

You're right, except I'd need to find a lot more than £5 to get out of my phone contract...
I DETEST this holier than thou attitude, if people cannot pay, they cannot pay, they may have phones *gasp* or a tv *double gasp* but just because they don't live in a shack with no electricity and wear burlap sacks instead if clothes to fit in with your ideal of being impoverished doesn't mean they actually cannot pay!

I think you're missing the point somewhat. If you value an expensive phone contract above your child's educational opportunities then why should I be expected to subside your family?

Treevo

jellyhead wrote: »

I wouldn't. I'd rather my kids didn't go, but so far they've always been able to, except for the Alton Towers trip for the teenager but that was at secondary school where if you don't pay you don't go. I only had two children because I couldn't afford a third. I make sacrifices elsewhere, and my eldest has school trips for his birthday and christmas presents.

If I really couldn't stretch the budget enough to find the trip money and couldn't sell anything on ebay, etc. then I would borrow the money off either set of grandparents on long term loan if it was a trip where the whole class was expected to go on and was educational. Perhaps not everyone is able to do this though.

I grew up not going on trips and I wouldn't have asked my grandparents - they were poor too. Those trips were 'nice extras' rather than educational in the way that trips nowadays are integrated into the class work. If the whole class should go then yes, the school budget should pay for those who can't pay. My children won't be in that situation because I'm lucky not to be in the circumstances that some families are in.

I think that's the point though - many people who 'can't' pay want to shift the responsibility onto the other parents/the school rather than asking their own families for help.

jellyhead

Treevo wrote: »

I think that's the point though - many people who 'can't' pay want to shift the responsibility onto the other parents/the school rather than asking their own families for help.

I only know a couple of non-payers, and their other family isn't in a position to pay either. I don't think our school has a problem with non-payers. They limit the trips a lot, in fact I think it's been more than 2 years since my 8 year old went on a paid trip. They don't have a trip every year, and for the last 2 years they didn't go to a christmas panto but had a theatre group come into school to perform a play they were studying. There's a school bus to take them swimming. School doesn't ask for much.

princessdon

Redouble wrote: »

You're right, except I'd need to find a lot more than £5 to get out of my phone contract...
I DETEST this holier than thou attitude, if people cannot pay, they cannot pay, they may have phones *gasp* or a tv *double gasp* but just because they don't live in a shack with no electricity and wear burlap sacks instead if clothes to fit in with your ideal of being impoverished doesn't mean they actually cannot pay!

If people chose mobile phones, sky HD, pay for school meals over a packed lunch or hundreds of pounds on livery fees each month over their child's education there is little I can do.

As I said some parents will always find things more valuable to spend money on, it's their children they should explain this to, not expect me to pay.

There are many parents living truly hand to mouth who pay, yet others well... An itouch is more important, there's something wrong when this happens.

jellyhead

If somebody had an iphone but pleaded poverty I'd assume they got into the contract when their circumstances were different, and it had a fee for leaving.

£7.50 a month is all I can afford though.

princessdon

jellyhead wrote: »

If somebody had an iphone but pleaded poverty I'd assume they got into the contract when their circumstances were different, and it had a fee for leaving.

£7.50 a month is all I can afford though.

You'd assume wrong in many cases, posters even on this thread have taken out new contracts in debt, pleading poverty for school trips. Sympathy erm no.

Dunroamin

Redouble wrote: »

You're right, except I'd need to find a lot more than £5 to get out of my phone contract...
I DETEST this holier than thou attitude, if people cannot pay, they cannot pay, they may have phones *gasp* or a tv *double gasp* but just because they don't live in a shack with no electricity and wear burlap sacks instead if clothes to fit in with your ideal of being impoverished doesn't mean they actually cannot pay!

Aren't you forgetting that families on low incomes or benefits receive around £70 pw in child related benefits, intended specifically to make sure that their children don't lose out?